|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:24 am
Most of you know that in the US there are heaps of tax credits for having children. Apparently that's not the only penalty one runs into for not spawning.
Today I had the pleasure of looking over my husband's health insurance info in trying to decide if I should get on it or not. I haven't have my own insurance for four years and haven't been to the doctor in that time, but I'd really like to have that option without worrying that it will bankrupt me.
The premium is 54.00 for employee, 131.00 for employee + spouse, 111.00 for employee + children, and 171.00 for employee, spouse and children.
So essentially:
54.00 for worker
77.00 for worker’s spouse
57.00 for worker’s unlimited children
60.00 for worker’s spouse if worker and spouse have (unlimited) children
As you can see, there is an obvious penalty for having a spouse without children. I'm curious how this can possibly help the insurance company, but I've figured that they must assume they will receive more co-payments and deductibles from the big families than from the couples, so they encourage the breeders to breed.
What do you think?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 3:25 am
I find it disgusting that people get paid to breed. And then have the audacity to claim that they 'struggle' financially after they have kids. Why do people assume that having children is A. necessary and B. a right?
As a voluntarily single person (I have a boyfriend, but really have no intention to ever get married) and it makes me a wee bit cross that here in the UK, I am expected to pay for everyone else, with no tax breaks or any kind of benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 9:12 am
When I had my own insurance it disgusted me that they would pay for only certain birth control options; the most common pill brands. They would have nothing to do with my IUD so I had to buy it all myself including the office visits for insertion and follow-up.
They would cover a percentage of fertility treatment though. In my mind, fertility is elective, like cosmetic surgery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:27 pm
The heck is this? O_o; Kids, in fact, MULTIPLE of them in unspecified quantities, cheaper than even one mate? Kids get sick a hell of a lot more than adults typically. And they can be clumsy and get hurt more often. And they need to get lots more shots and regular check ups and crap. And why is that same mate cheaper once they have kids? That just means now they'll catch a cold from the kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:40 am
Hmmm weird... I do not understand the logic behind how insurance companies operate either. I guess they are relying on a healthy adult to not get sick. God knows I have not really been sick enough to warrant a doctor visit in over a year. stare if I was paying for my insurance they would have made a lot of money. Off of me, though you would think kids would cost more. As most children do get sick more often.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 12:21 pm
I'm thinking about writing Blue Cross a letter but I doubt it would do any good. I saw this somewhat related story today: Quote: Health Reform Expected to Provide Free Birth Control, Social Conservatives Sulk Lindsay Beyerstein on July 13, 2010, 11:19 AM Dana Goldstein reports in the Daily Beast that the HHS may require all insurers to cover birth control: "Experts expect the Department of Health and Human Services, led by pro-choice Obama appointee Kathleen Sebelius, to spend the next six to 18 months researching women's health before releasing new guidelines for women's "preventive health care." Under the new law, services and medications defined as "preventive" must be offered to customers of new insurance plans free of co-pays—whether that insurance is employer-provided or purchased on the individual marketplace, whether inside or outside of the new, subsidized health insurance exchanges." [Daily Beast] Needless to say, social conservative groups are up in arms about this sensible and politically popular proposal. There's not a lot the can do to stop it, now that the policy has entered the rule-making phase. The conservative groups have to be careful. They are way outside the mainstream on this issue. Abortion is controversial in some quarters but contraception is as American as apple pie. Twenty-seven states already require health insurers to cover prescription birth control such as oral contraceptives, the IUD, and the diaphragm. The vast majority of sexually active American women say they do not currently want to become pregnant; 89% of them are using some form of birth control. Over 15 million American women are taking birth control pills. The U.S. Council of Catholic Bishops demonstrates once again that it cares less about preventing abortions than about controlling female sexuality: ""I don't want to overstate or understate our level of concern," said McQuade, the Catholic bishops' spokesperson. "We consider [birth control] an elective drug. Married women can practice periodic abstinence. Other women can abstain altogether. Not having sex doesn't make you sick."" [Daily Beast] Even the USCCB knows better than to argue that birth control shouldn't be covered because it's sinful. They'd be laughed out of court, even in the red states. Instead, they're arguing semantics. The USCCB claims that birth control isn't preventative care because fertility isn't a disease. No, fertility isn't a disease, but pregnancy is a life-altering health condition that can kill you. The Catholic Church itself teaches that women have to die if their survival conflicts with that of a fetus. So, pregnancy-prevention is definitely preventative health care. Can you believe there are still people in the world who don't believe in having pregnancy prevention as a choice? I am ecstatic about these changes because they would require these lousy insurance companies to treat all logical forms of birth control the same and offer them as preventative care, which means IUDs will be covered for everyone who is eligible to have one. This will be a huge victory, but there are still mountains to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:06 pm
3nodding Let us hope that said legislation passes for our sake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:36 pm
Waaaaaaait a moment. Something here does not compute. It says "free birth control", but it is just requiring health insurance to cover birth control. You have to pay for health insurance though, copay or not. So, that's definitely not free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:07 am
Yeah "free" in this case is actually far from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 11:15 am
xd Would be free for me.... sweatdrop my company pays for all my health insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 16, 2010 12:19 pm
XenoReiji xd Would be free for me.... sweatdrop my company pays for all my health insurance.
Fool, that's still not free either. razz It is essentially taking a portion of the value allotted to you for the work that you do and assigning it automatically to only be able to be used for health related purposes instead of paying you more cash, which you could then choose to use for any purpose you wanted, health related or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 17, 2010 8:02 pm
couldn't the breakdown just as easily be
54 for employee
77 for spouse
57 for children if parent is single
40 for children with both parents
the insurance company just hates single parents.
makes sense because a single parent would usually have to work meaning that there wouldn't be someone at home with the kiddies, so they'd be more prone to injury.
lol i don't know. yeah it's pretty messed up stressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 10:38 am
crying Sorry all my brain has been distracted these past week...s
Anyway, God damn health insurance and not being 100% free. However, since I do not have to pay extra money so... I am going to pretend it is free.
xd I love how insurance compaines justify hiking the rates for people. Like how car insurance uses male agression as an excuse to charge us more. Even though I am pretty sure femlaes get in accidents more often. It is just a vicious and annoying cycle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 19, 2010 2:58 pm
It's ok, I understand how that is. wink
Heh, free stuff tends to be really crappy anyway though, so perhaps you should be more glad you don't need to rely on freebies. xd
Yeah, a lot of laws are in place that make it hard for people to just up and ditch the annoying companies and switch to better one, or make new better ones or refuse to buy from them, so lots of stupid crap is gotten away with like something like, say, restaurants would NEVER get away with and survive. Stupid crap example, the insurance company for my parents vehicles (since my little sister and I don't have our own and so are on our parents insurance), since we legally have to have insurance, pulled some annoying crap for which I tried to see if I could convince my parents to switch companies if possible. My sister and I only drove our mom's car, not our dad's, and me especially I rarely drive because I don't have many places to go, especially not far away, and I am away at college more than half of the time. However, my sister and I were assigned as primary drivers for our dad's vehicle in addition to our mom's, when we had never driven our dad's at all. Since at the time we were both still under 21 for a while there (my sister still is) and they charge people under 21 a lot extra, that made thing way more expensive or the insurance. Frustrating since aside from being blatantly false, we were being charged extra for us when we had good driving records too, me especially. (I'm admittedly not the best driver around, but I've never damaged anybody else's property or gotten any tickets or anything.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:13 am
mrgreen Speaking of car insurance, now that I am 25 mine dropped $50 a month.
Yeah my mom said that because the insurance company found out, via registration, that my step-dads son was living in their house they raised the car insurance on all the vehicles they own. Even though the kid had his own car which was insured by his mother in a different state.
Needless to say there were some angry phone calls made. I think they got a refund. My step-dad is a p***k when it comes to getting money back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
